Barratt Developments Plc v City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council & Anor

A local development policy setting an affordable-housing target must reflect economic viability, be justified by robust evidence, and remain flexible and deliverable over the plan period. A numerical target may be appropriate, but its application can be subject to site-by-site negotiation where viability depends on changing market conditions. The policy must be read as a whole and purposively. A target stated for qualifying sites may therefore operate as a ceiling or benchmark, rather than an inflexible requirement, if the policy makes the actual provision dependent on abnormal costs, economic viability and other development requirements. A planning inspector may reject more elaborate trigger mechanisms where no realistic and workable alternative is established. The claim was dismissed because the policy, properly construed, complied with the statutory and national-policy requirements.

Wakefield adopted a Core Strategy containing Policy CS6, which addressed housing mix and affordable housing. The policy stated that qualifying developments should provide 30% affordable housing, subject to specified thresholds, but also provided that the actual amount would be negotiated having regard to abnormal costs, economic viability and other development requirements.

Barratt challenged the adoption under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It argued that the policy imposed an unviable and inflexible 30% requirement, contrary to national policy and the evidence in an economic viability appraisal. The central issue was whether Policy CS6, properly construed, imposed an unlawful rigid requirement or a flexible target capable of responding to changing market conditions.

1. Claim dismissed. The adoption of Policy CS6 was within the statutory power.
2. National policy required an affordable-housing target to reflect the likely economic viability of land, risks to delivery and available finance. It also required a core strategy to be justified by robust and credible evidence, to be the most appropriate strategy against reasonable alternatives, and to be flexible and deliverable over its plan period.
3. The economic viability appraisal showed that delivery could range from 0% to 30%, depending on market conditions, site characteristics and tenure. The Inspector was entitled to accept that the evidence base was robust and credible. She was also entitled to conclude that further stepped percentages or economic trigger points were not realistic or workable in conditions that were constantly changing.
4. A 30% numerical target was permissible. The policy did not require 30% affordable housing on every qualifying site regardless of viability. Read as a whole, the threshold provisions confined the target to qualifying sites and the negotiation provisions made the actual amount dependent on abnormal costs, economic viability and other requirements. The percentage could therefore range between 0% and 30% according to prevailing circumstances.
5. The words requiring provision sufficient to meet identified needs meant provision contributing towards those needs. A literal construction would contradict the Inspector’s conclusion that a higher requirement was unviable.
6. The Inspector’s reasons were adequate. In a policy-making examination involving stakeholder participation, she was not required to resolve every disputed modelling assumption or record every representation. She was required to address the principal important controversial issues and explain why the evidence base was sound.

First-instance judicial review claim. No prior appellate decision concerning this dispute is stated in the judgment.